The Confederate Flag

Direct White House access is not a right, it's a privilege. A privilege to be among the first to report White House press statements and briefings, that are then sent to many press outlets. Having such direct access has nothing to do with the First Amendment (a negative right), but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Bluster is not fascism, and the executive branch doesn't make laws.

But Trump’s anti-press bluster aside, there’s a clear blueprint to follow — courtesy of Barack Obama, who once claimed that he would be the most transparent president ever but proved to be no friend to press rights.
...
But what happened under Obama set an ominous tone for reporters who were trying to do their jobs of informing the public.

So did the Obama administration’s record-breaking use of an arcane century-old law — the Espionage Act — which it used nine times to pursue leakers.

“If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama,” Risen wrote shortly after Trump’s election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...b84d88-6b06-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html​

So as usual, lefties hypocritically whining about things they've already done, in spades. Leaking classified info is a huge deal when it's Trump doing it (even though the President determines what's classified) or inconvenient to Obama, but hypocritically an "attack in freedom of the press" when the Trump admin investigates as Obama's did.

Again, you obviously don't understand freedom if you conflate it with harassment. Freedom of expression is not limited to your own home, otherwise there would be no right to protest at all.
Really? BDS? You mean the laws to counter the anti-Semitic Democrat policies ham-fistedly enforcing BDS, based solely on country of origin? You do know that it was already illegal to discriminate on the bases of "national origin", right? No? Yet another thing you're ignorant of.
There's also no laws/policies enforcing bans against "Egypt, Turkey or Denmark" (unlike Democrat BDS policies) that need to be explicitly protected against under existing anti-discrimination law. You seem to have a very selective understanding of anti-discrimination law.

Yet instead of anyone detailing any supposed contradictions, they have to resort to such bare assertions. The thin veneer is that you've made the case at all. You just make the claim, hope enough people agree, and rely on argumentum ad populum. And your "freedom to kill babies" argument is just plain ignorant.

Well don't stop there. Explain to us why you think children should be subjected to pornography.
And no, I don't agree.

That would be tyranny of the majority, which is why the US is a republic, not a pure democracy.

No need to throw a tantrum.

Only ignorant leftists believe anything should be absolute. It's a straw man to act as if any conservative/libertarian believes freedom, or anything else, can be absolute, as negative rights specifically curtail the ability of people to encroach on the rights of others. That necessarily includes property rights and said fences. Your right to freedom does not allow you to violate the property rights of another nor put others at risk. But re flags, no one has any right to not be offended. And before you go there again, please explain how subjecting children to pornography is merely offensive and in no way harmful to children. Go ahead. We're all listening. Maybe go ask an adult woman if they'd find pornographic flags or t-shirts sexual harassment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not what those verses say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

huh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jacob didn't "force God to bless him".
He said of the encounter "“It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” Genesis 32:24-30

 

It is a god given right..everyone knows that.

Yet you would find a penis flag offensive and you still, conveniently don't get it...oh the only reason is that it may expose children to sin..is that it? Otherwise no problem..so on your view the penis flag would be ok where there are no ladies or kids...got it...maybe the Confederate flag should be confined to KKK meetings and gatherings of white supremacists...my straw person tells me that's ok with you...

Dirty pool. Is there no tactic you can not lower yourself to employ?

I submit that the Confederate flag is harmful to children as they can easily see folk getting upset and when those people who are upset explain why they Are so upset they must go thru the slavery issue and how the South was directly responsible for the deaths of 600,000 humans. Further they would need to cover the KKK and white supremacists .... If you are concerned about exposing children to disgusting things then perhaps you need to rethink your unsustainable position...

Lets ban the flag for the kids..the Confederate flag..just try and remember that there is no penis flag nor will there ever be for obvious reasons and it is a pity you can not parrallel the flags and get some sensible context as to why the Confederate flag should go.

Well you see my point is that the penis flag is offensive and should not be allowed to exist in the same way that the Confederate flag should be banned.

You are so typically right wing ..if it's ok by you what others think is irrelevant..to you.

And you can argue your position until the cows come home but you are just plain wrong...but next time there is a rally why don't you turn up with the Confederate flag and yell no one has the right to be offended..make sure you take all your guns so truth and justice can prevail....

And what is you problem with leftists politics...they after all only preach fairness for all, sensible management of wealth that would see all folk looked after before a few can hoard billions that they can only spend in a manner that is a gross waste of finite resources. Don't you think free health care not only would be fair but save a fortune by retiring all those folk in the health insurance game...much better to have the government collect taxes and apply it where needed for health care..much more efficient ..why is the right so dead against efficiency?

I expect if you were in a life boat and brought food and water you would not want to share it with anyone, well you wouldn't if you had also bought your guns. So what is your problem with extending fairness and compassion ... why do you stand up for the right to use freedom in an offensive manner...you agree many folk find the flag offensive yet you have no compassion for them..How do you feel about Jews who get upset seeing the Nazi flag? Would you tell them to stop being offended as these Nazi folk have every right to fly their flag..and when they explain that they lost many members of their family thru the hatred and murder by those waving the Nazi flag what would you say? Really what would you say?

Do you own more Confederate flags than Nazi flags? Why do you need guns? Who is it you fear will attack you? Not lefties no guns, not good Southern white folk too christian..rather than me waste another straw person why dont you tell me who you plan to kill with your guns?

Alex

 

How can you not understand the simple difference between a flag design that is not inherently offensive (only symbolically so) and pornography that is inherently offensive (because it's objectively pornographic)? Why don't you change your avatar here to a penis and see how that goes over? You've already posted images of swastikas, so why not a penis too? Because you're a hypocrite who actually knows the difference and just enjoys playing dumb.

I take it then that you can't. Nothing dirty in holding you to your own assertions.

That's called a teachable moment. But I can see how racists may not want children learning that history. They want to scrub any discomfiting subject from public awareness and dumb down the whole society. The racists know that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, which reminds me of California wanting to remove anti-discrimination protections from their state constitution:

Proposition 16 is a California ballot proposition that will appear on the November 3, 2020 general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal 1996's Proposition 209. Proposition 209 prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16​

Get that? They want to allow voters to get rid of their anti-discrimination law.

You really don't understand freedom, nor the simple difference between the inherently, objectively offensive and the merely symbolically offensive. It's the difference between flipping someone the bird (middle finger) and exposing your penis to them. One will get you arrested, and for good reason. And the one that won't get you arrested literally means "fuck you". Symbolically, it has no other meaning, whereas the Confederate flag has more than one meaning...as evidenced by blacks who fly it (unless you're insisting they are so inferior that those blacks literally advocate slavery of their own race).

Negative rights do not entail infringing on the rights of others, even when I disagree with them. BLM offends me, as I find it nakedly racist, just by the simple test of changing the race. If "white lives matter" is racist, so is "black lives matter". But I'm not here whining to remove their freedom of expression, because I think that right is more important than my personal comfort. You know, principles, integrity, and consistency.

IOW, no amount of reasoning will ever change your bare assertion, even when you can't rationally defend it.
I've never flown a Confederate flag, as I don't come from the south. Principles means you can advocate for rights used otherwise than you ever would. But that would be too rational and objective for you to understand.

Since you obviously don't understand freedom, nor economics or efficiency, worth a damn, it'd be a complete waste of time.

You can't legislate morality without fascism, and that includes pretenses of compassion. True compassion can only be voluntary, and laws that compel others are not voluntary. Again, you're woeful ignorance of freedom at play here.

I've never told anyone to stop being offended. Being offended and people having the freedom of expression are not mutually exclusive. Actually, the latter ensures that the former will inevitably obtain. Offense is actually the proof of freedom of expression.

I've never owned nor flown either, so quit projecting your fevered imaginings. There is such a thing as militant and gun owning leftists. But I guess you're ignorant of that too. Aside from hunting and sport shooting, most people own a gun to defend themselves against criminals. Because it's true, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. I don't plan to kill anyone, because unlike you, I don't have to have that intent to simply own a gun. Most gun owners hope they never need it, but you hope for the best and prepare for the worst...or just cross your fingers and hope you're never a victim.

 

If you're worried about criminals, and the cops take too long to arrive, why not just stall the criminals with landmines, barbed wire and a sign reading "Stay the **** off muh properteh or y'all gonna git yer legs blown clean off!"

 

For one, criminals don't solely rob houses. Again, just a skosh of reasoning would tell you that much.

 

Not if that is an official channel of communication for the US Government. Then the First Amendment applies; freedom of the press to report on the US government is protected.

If they want to claim that the White House briefings are NOT official channels of communication, then they can do whatever they like.

Correct.
Bluster is yelling at reporters; fascism is denying access to reporters who do not hew to State propaganda.
Bluster is saying reporters are evil; fascism is threatening to throw them in jail for reporting the news in their own way.
Bluster is saying reporters are lying; fascism is attempting to pass laws to limit freedom of the press.

That used to be true. Trump (and several other presidents) use executive orders to pass laws and circumvent the legislature.

Wow! From saying "the president doesn't make law" to whining about Obama using the power of the executive order in two sentences! That, my angry ape friend, is some serious ODS right there. "The president doesn't have that power - and Obama abused that power!"

 

The US press gets that information whether or not any individual journalist is allowed that privilege. The White House has a webpage dedicated to disseminating its statements and briefings to anyone:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/

Educate yourself.

See the above correction of your demonstrated ignorance.

Seeing as there are no such laws, nor can the executive branch create such laws, it is all bluster. Too bad you don't understand US law enough to know the difference.

No, if you had bothered to read what I quoted, you would know that both can make use of the century-old Espionage Act. That does not entail throwing journalists in jail for simply reporting how they want. It specifically applies, at least by Obama's precedent, to finding the source of leaks of classified information. And the Trump White House has been far more leaky than any of its actions against grandstanding trolls like Jim Acosta would even vaguely suggest.

 

I don't have your apparent experience with pornography, I guess you must get offended by it a great deal but as I don't go near it I just don't think about it...even when I first suggested that a t shirt with a penis would be offensive I did not think about the great number of people who are into pornography.

And if I wanted to be very offensive I could always go for the Confederate flag...which do think is the more offensive of the two?

You really want me to post a penis don't you but unfortunately I just won't be doing that...sorry.

There are a lot of things you need to have explained I guess, sometimes I fail to take that into account...the idea behind posting the photo was to draw attention to the offensive act of displaying the nazi flag, the offensive act of displaying the Confederate flag and the offensive act of having both those flags at a higher elevation than the Stars and Strips and to display those two offensive flags, the Nazi and confederate with the Stars and Stripes. I hope that now makes sense for you.

Sure if that builds your self esteem... you won and I am shattered..woe is me.

Who raised it..not me..you should be ashamed of yourself trying to win that way...you are better than that..or at least I believe you are capable of arguing decently but to try that on is just dirty pool...and look how you seek to dwell on that approach..know this you can throw all the mud you like but just realise it is only landing on you.

Look to make you feel better and in step with my huge efforts to build your self esteem I say this..you could be right saying folk should not get offended etc but these things are not absolute..you know how you say lefties deal in absolutes well as a friend I must point out to you that you seem to have picked up one of, the many no doubt, bad habits...the mere fact that someone is offended should be the issue and not that it has anything to do with freedom etc... the point is there are people who with very good reason are offended by the flag..it really does represent so many bad things and that is the issue..the only issue..now don't try to appear foolish by rushing past that reasonable observation and whether I am a hypocrite or a mug has nothing to do with working out the decent thing to do ..putting to rest the offensive, for some, this stupid devotion to a flag representing so much that is very very wrong would be decent, getting rid of the flag would be decent and if that means some folk need to take a step backward let them get over their childish pride and do the decent thing...that is acting mature and in a responsible fashion don't you think?

Is it..could you explain what you mean so as to save me searching..us Aussies need all the help you can provide..plus helping another presumably will be a novel experience for you, you could experience the joy of being compassionate..you would like that now wouldn't you?

Don't be so silly that you destroy this being fun. Shall we add to your position the notion that besides issues of freedom not to be bothered by someone being offended by your actions, waving a offensive flag, that to wave the offensive flag is a good thing to have racist teach history to their kids... your monkey could do better...Are you taking advice from your monkey?

So true and saying flying that offensive flag proves your point admirably..thank you.

Yeh but what do you expect from those racist lefties from California...nevertheless if you have made a point I missed it.

I understand your point but you are flogging a dead horse. I insist on the freedom that folk, with good reason to be offended, are not offended.
That makes perfect sense even though I don't, in your view, understand freedom.

Freedom is precious but having a nation where you stop rat bags needs to be taken into account and clearly the rat bags swam to their offensive flag.

Stop it..talk sense for goodness sake.

I understand you..I may not agree with what you say etc...still we have citizens who are offended with good reason ..dealing with a specific concern such as this is important ..it is only black and white (as in contrast nothing to do with race here) at a philosophical level. And doesn't that philosophy point to taking all views into account and not selectively ignoring some as it may hurt freedom in some general sense.

Well I am Aussie after all ..but why can you not take into account those folk who are offended could you not see that as a decent principle to follow? You could have yet another principle besides freedom..that would be cool.

So you have no counter arguements..yet another win for me. Thank you.

Let's face it you know I am right but you are stuck in your ways and incapable of seeing the economic benefits of keeping your nation happy and healthy and weaving a thread of compassion into your view..Letting the government manage health would have great savings...don't tell me you are one of these folk who think the government only employs dull people...you surely have not fallen for that nonsense. The military manage health rather well..they are government employees..trust me..government health care is better and really efficient..no multiple CEOs of multiple funds...anyways you will be stuck in the propaghadah said CEOs put out their to protect their inefficient jobs.

Nonsense wrapped up in your ignorance of what Facism is...you need to do better. What a silly thing to say ..even if it is not a fishy comment, which it cleary is, I will treat that as a red herring. I am not going to waste time finding examples to prove you wrong ..you just are so wrong I need do nothing.

[

 

Stop being silly... what can I say to you..nothing is what ...else you may think you are making sense when clearly you are not..Aussie and freedom ...nothing needs to be said ...I won't elevate your nonsense to a level that gets a reply.

Yeh and you can't have peace if you don't have war...your wisdom sucks.

It's those damn straw persons again.

Having a gun means you have elected for victimhood status, you do see that don't you.

Anyways I will not judge you or your motivations ..I used to carry five shotguns, two rifles and three hundred rounds of ammunition in the boot of my car, which sounds odd but that was safer than leaving it all at home because of breakins...I was a trap and sckeet shooter...but I got rid of all of it cause it was just such a worry that it could fall into the wrong hands.

I absolutely understand your position re freedom and would say there are many things you say that I can agree with. The flag thing..you have good points to offer but given the past and the hurt that flag brings I feel more needs to be done to entertain those offended ..they have good reason.
These things are often related to a pengelam swing ... you have something bad..you get reaction which can go to seemingly overreaction if you are not personally involved..so I submit these folk who are offended have very good reason and if some freedom must be lost to accommmodate them, then so be it, as any loss of freedom is nothing compared to what they probably have suffered..if they get things more their way so be it.
Nice chatting as usual. I hope my style has not offended you ..I take it that you are up for it otherwise I would not dish it out in such quantity.
Alex

 

So you think it takes experience with pornography to simply recognize it as such? I suppose you think that means that no child could possibly be harmed by it, as they do not know to label it pornography. I'm seriously starting to wonder if some law enforcement agency should look through your computer or supervise your interactions with children. I mean, how hard is it to simple admit pornography is harmful to children?

Since the forum rules explicitly prohibit pornography, that's fairly obvious. That you would have to ask, seemingly unaware of even basic internet standards, is worrisome.
Again, one is merely symbolically offensive and the other is inherently offensive. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting images of the Confederate and Nazi flags. If they are so offensive, you posting them is equally so.

By yourself hypocritically contributing to the very offense you're railing against. See, it matters who is displaying it and why. You simply presuming all displays mean advocacy of slavery is you hypocritically ignoring your own display.

Is that what you think this is about? If so, you're the only one.

It really shouldn't be that hard for you to simply and unequivocally admit that a picture of a penis is inherently more offensive and harmful than a Confederate flag. You're repeated refusal to do so it worrisome.

Again, there is not right to not be offended. If you demand restricting the freedoms of others for simply being offended, it most certainly does involve freedom. But maybe you have too much of a selfish double standard to ever understand such a universal principle, applied equally to everyone. Again, you're argument would equally deny people the right to protest, display BLM signs, etc.. There is no way to ensure no one is offended, and cherry-picking your preferred offenses to restrict is discriminatory.

Demanding that others do things to satisfy your own sense of decency is fascism. What you think is decent or childish is your own subjective opinion, that you seem intent on foisting on others, just like any religious zealot. IOW, quit preaching your religion.

Maturity is respecting the rights of others, especially when they conflict with your sense of decency. Immaturity is incessantly whining about things you have no ability to change.

Ahem:

I guess you forgot that you said "those people who are upset explain why they Are so upset". You know, not racists teaching the kids.

I guess the ramifications of removing protections against racial discrimination is completely lost on you.

Again, for the umpteenth time, no one has a right to live a life free of offense. That is not a negative freedom of the individual, that is a positive obligation for anyone who may ever come in contact with the individual. State enforced obligations are not freedoms, so you still, demonstrably, don't understand freedom. Using the state to crush people you simply don't like or agree with is fascism. Which explains why you can't comprehend freedom.

Create a new thread if you want to debate the merits of leftist politics.

LOL! That so cute! You actually seem to believe that tripe.

The saying is "si vis pacem, para bellum" (if you want peace, prepare for war). That doesn't mean there must be war, only that there must be adequate deterrent to war.
Your wisdom seem nonexistent.

LOL! Just because you made yourself a victim to your own worries doesn't make your anecdotal experience universal.
I don't worry because my guns are either on my person or secured. And unlike you, I live in a safe community, where break-ins are extremely rare. So maybe OZ ain't so safe without guns.

And that's exactly what Europe said about Germany before WWII.

 

Granting direct White House access to the public's choice of their representation in the press is not an option, but a job requirement, of the Presidency.
He's an employee, and he's accountable to his employers at his employer's discretion.
One of those accountability requirements is that the President make and keep a record of his actions and dealings, and provide it to the appropriate Congressional oversight committees on demand. Trump - like Reagan and H and (flagrantly) W/Cheney before him - has refused to do this. He has - among other violations - met several times with foreign heads of State with whom he has personal financial ties, not only without keeping a record but while overtly preventing such a record from being made.

No, it doesn't. If the only journalists allowed access are those who parrot the President's self-justifications and excuses and lies and concealments, the public remains uninformed - and an employer has a legitimate interest in being informed about what their employee is doing on the job, in the name of that employer and using the employer's resources.
Especially, of course, when the job involved is rife with temptations for self-enrichment, embezzlement, theft, and abuses of various kinds - in the private sector banks (for example) often enforce transparency rigidly and formally (for example: by requiring regular vacations be taken in full, while management's choice of temporary replacement has complete access to every aspect of one's job in one's absence).

Beyond the Constitutional provisions for impeachment etc, the US has not formalized or rigidly enforced its legitimate interest in transparency on the Presidency - but it has, over the decades, established customs and routines beyond the basic Constitutional mandates (that the President must deliver to Congress a yearly accounting of the "state of the union" under their executive management is not adequate, as everyone knows).

And yet that is exactly how Trump interprets it, and what he is threatening to do.

And his supporters have been waving the Confederate flag in support of these threats - just as their forefathers did in support of State terrorism against the journalists who covered the Civil Rights demonstrations in the 80s and 60s. That flag has played its one and unique role in American politics for several generations now - there is no mystery about what it symbolizes.

 

Whats most troubling , is that trumps supporters don't question , trumps actions .

 

That is false.
A Confederate flag is considerably more offensive to many people than a picture of a penis. That's why the people who want to offend wave it instead of pictures of their junk.

 

But it shouldn't be .

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Filthy pool. You have stepped over the line. Please leave pornography out of this discussion.
In fact I am going to report you...this is clearly trolling ... you indulged the same miserable tactic with Paddoboy.
You are losing the arguement so you throw shit ..is your avatar really you.
I suppose you would like me to admit the Sun rises every morning ... Anyways to help build your self esteem, which is lower than I first imagined I will give you what you want ...pornography is harmful to children and presumably also harmful to adults... now see how it's done ...so easy to agree with an opponent when they are correct...well at least it is for those of us with high self esteem...certainly something you are unable to do evidenced by your continued bleating about intangible freedoms versus the very real and justifiable hurt generated by the Confederate flag...I think you got hung up on the speech about not agreeing but fighting to protect the right to say it thing...and really one only has to read your various posts and it becomes sadly clear protecting the free speech of others is beyond you both in ability and in application such that all you can muster is to seek a lost cause to support and employ despicable tactics when your life as the champion of freedom dribbles down the drain.
Still I like you...you see I am above all compassionate and although you can be offensive and childish I reason that you must have various issues that cause you to be just you.
And most of all I must thank you for this part of your post, it's nice to start the day with such enjoyable light exercise..I won't report you and I plead with others not to as I don't want you banned and think it has now become clear why the good Lord has sent you to us, although one would have thought he would save your punishementbuntil you leave your mortal body.

Why didn't you say that earlier? I get it now ... so you are ok with symbolic offensiveness..I feel so much better..you have justified your position and I can see these problem with the flag isnt really a problem..if I were you I would write to NASCAR and point that out...you are just so funny no wonder I cant get mad at you.

Yes I can see your point can you forgive me for becoming desperate in trying to get you to be rational re the flag.

Yes but maybe I am being sarcastic.

Dont be worried I admit that it was an extreme example but I just formed the impression you were unfamilar with how offensive that flag is to some folk.

You have nothing and insist on proving it to all.

No that is something else.

Sorry have to go hopefully I will return ...a nice post very enjoyable chatting.
Alex

 

I think it's an interesting dynamic, how at a forum where the posters are probably mostly European, it turns into the land of the long white post.

But come on, apart from some interaction with people who aren't European, how close does any poster really get to the kind of daily experience that non-Europeans have?
Is it really "their" fault they can't or won't improve their circumstances, move out of the ghetto, get a better paying job? Is being black, for instance, a ticket to police brutality and overreaction?

"Chief, we got protestors out here on the street".
"Ok, well, just keep an eye on them and I'll send you some backup".

"Chief, some of them are black!".
"Oh shit. I better call the governor and get the National Guard out".